Skip to PREreview
Requested PREreview

PREreview of Research Integrity and Publish or Perish: Definitions and Relations

by Reinier M. Navarro
Published
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.14572680
License
CC BY 4.0

Manuscript Summarized

Scientific integrity using certain research behaviors sheds light on scholars' important responsibility to the academe and the public while making knowledge through research available. This study presented relevant grey literature entries and published examples of commendable and condemnable practices. This narrative review included applicable challenges and implications for scholars while keeping these scholarly safeguards for publishing and research.

Current Manuscript Recommendation: Revise & resubmit

Major Comments

  1. The introduction needs improvement. At first reading, it felt like I was going through a textbook chapter without any context. Though the language is easy to follow for a reader with a working understanding of English, this introduction used certain terms differently. Among these realizations, I critique this introduction as an ineffective way to establish the researcher’s intended research territory (I will explain further this observation using the first four paragraphs of the introduction):

    • The introduction’s first paragraph defined research integrity. The researcher underscored how such is vital for scholars inferring or conversing on topics. This paragraph is followed by how research integrity is used by these scholars. The third paragraph compared research integrity to research ethics. Responsible research meant adherence to research reliability, as introduced in the fourth paragraph of the introduction before the study structure was run down.

    • In my opinion, the researcher wrote an introduction that students would cite in their outputs should the topic be on research integrity. Though I understood the intention of the researcher to impose what the subject of interest is, the lack of context, current knowledge, and gaps in this starting write-up do not convince me of the need to have this subject read. Please go with me through these observations on structure:

      • The first sentence of the first paragraph is a lengthy explanation of what research integrity is and who upholds it. It is followed by why it is important. I can see this paragraph to be retained but simplified.

      • The second paragraph rehashed the first paragraph’s second sentence. I can see this detailed rationale to be omitted.

      • A comparison of research ethics (which was introduced out of nowhere) and research integrity is the highlight of the third paragraph. I do not see the need to make such a distinction early on in the introduction. Coherence between the first two paragraphs and this third paragraph was missing.

      • The fourth paragraph is poorly written as it introduced another aspect (which is research reliability). Effects of research misconduct were also placed in the same paragraph (I argue this idea can stand as another paragraph).

    • I identified that the introduction used certain terms differently. Please go with me through these observations on terminologies and how it was applied in the introduction section:

      • The first sentence used “independent researcher” as movers of research integrity and tagged as research trainers. Unless this is established common knowledge (since no citations were made), the term and definition used are limiting. If anything, research integrity is necessarily associated with and upheld by scholars, their colleagues critiquing them, their students learning from them, and the public benefiting from their work. Such an affair is not exclusive to researchers only.

      • “Reliability” is first mentioned in the second paragraph. I discourage using such a term as it can be confused with a metric commonly used in statistics. I do not see adherence to research ethics as the best reason to ensure “reliability.”

  2. Though I appreciate the lengths the author went to see every possible source, the narrative review was text-heavy. I recognize the importance of highlighting examples of these concepts. However, most of these collated definitions are reworded despite having the same idea. Similarly, the sections of the review fail to jive as coherent and clear. The narrative review could have been a great opportunity for the researcher to see the gaps or absent aspects that these concepts have. (I will explain this critique using some parts of the review):

    • Instead of presenting how different organizations defined “research integrity,” reassess if their corresponding definitions have challenges, critiques, or lapses. Double-check if these lapses are reported by one, two, or more organizations. Evaluate if you would observe relevant gaps in these definitions (I can see the segway much more fit to the 2010 and 2022 definitions presented if this revision is reconsidered)

    • Since you are talking about “research integrity,” why not show data on such instead of research misconduct? Though I commend using such examples, I do not see these examples to best complement this section.

    • I expected a review of aspects of “research integrity.” I instead read a review of definitions relevant to understanding research misconduct. Like the first section on “research integrity,” grey literature entries were used to fill the manuscript. There was no proper synthesis of ideas. There was even an attempt to use bullet points for a definition (which is more applicable for a PowerPoint slide if you present this paper section at a conference).

  3. Instead of focusing on research integrity, the latter part of the manuscript and the conclusion relied more on why publishing studies was necessary. Rather than summarizing points, further citations of new studies were made, which I did not see applicable to cap off this narrative review.

Minor Comments

  1. Though the article is published under one person, multiple instances of the pronoun “we” and “authors” frequently appear in this manuscript.

  2. There were remarks written in all caps and in a different language (see pages 5 and 10).

  3. The researcher cited Wikipedia pages to supplement their ideas (see pages 6 and 7).

  4. The researcher mostly used complex sentences. I have no issue with such, but it may be challenging for some readers to follow.

Recommendations for All Comments

  1. I hope the following suggestions on major comments can help improve this manuscript:

    • If you will write a narrative review on research integrity and corresponding activities that are opposite of such, please do follow and make an applicable coherent, and cohesive write-up on such. If needed, please revise your manuscript title and working outline if you will omit a subject.

    • Please review how to properly establish your research territory and establish your applicable niche (Swales & Feak, 2013). I suggest not missing the chance to simplify ideas and connect ideas across related sentences. If you want to teach readers about your subject, I suggest you write your manuscript as if they will understand it so they know they are affected by the problems you are raising.

    • I highly recommend the researcher use either tables (e.g., for comparing definitions or practices) or figures to substitute the lengthy text that is now populating the narrative review. I hope the researcher reconsiders this so more commentary on their syntheses is prioritized in the revised manuscript.

    • As I recommend showing data on “research integrity,” perhaps focus on major journals and see what are their common policies that are considered safeguards of research integrity. If not journals, maybe consider institutional review boards or grant-awarding organizations that participate in empirical research.

    • Please do not interchange terms. If needed, I suggest finding an appropriate synonym for the terms you intend to highlight in your manuscript.

    • I suggest the researcher not to make any further review for the conclusion. The conclusion should summarize the key points of the narrative review while highlighting future directions applicable for other scholars to reconsider.

  2. I hope the following suggestions on minor comments can help improve this manuscript:

    • Please change the reportage of the manuscript to “first-person.” However, please be wary of journal policies requiring you to edit such.

    • Please remove the unnecessary remarks that are not written in English, especially if they will not contribute to the review.

    • I highly recommend replacing your cited Wikipedia pages with empirical works concerning the ideas you have written.

    • Please maximize the use of simple sentences while using simple academic English.

  3. I suggest the following sources to be added to this manuscript as I find it relevant in further revising your manuscript (these sources could also stir more food for thought for the researcher):

Manuscript Significance

I see that students will benefit more from this manuscript than researchers based on how it is written. Suppose the researcher reconsiders the comments and suggestions I presented. Only then will other scholars learn, reconsider, cite, and comment on the new foci that need to be studied for research integrity and activities related to research misconduct. I am well-versed in writing, hence my critique of the manuscript style.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Comments

Write a comment
  1. by Ebony Crow
    Published
    License
    CC BY 4.0

    I second many of the points raised by N. R. Navarro.

    In addition, I would stress that research ethics and research integrity need to be separated, although both are closely interlinked. In terms of ethics, the usual starting point is avoiding harm. To this end, something like the Declaration of Helsinki might provide a starting point for a brief elaboration. Though note that many fields have their own ethical guidelines for research, which are often collated into professional ethical guidelines and codes of conduct.

    I like the concise summary in Fig. 2, although it is perhaps a little too concise in a sense that it is unclear and debatable whether QRPs really are about violating responsibility. As correctly stated, many — if not the most (?) — QRPs are unintentional oversights, mistakes, and other honest errors.

    In a similar vein, I am not sure whether retractions really correlate with allegedly increased misconduct. While retractions have been growing, sure, so have the amount of published papers. If there are now something like 50,000 retracted papers archived, what about scaling this amount with the few million papers published each year? Nor is it clear whether we really need more retractions (to put aside blatant misconduct) or something more productive, whether pre-prints, replications, rebuttals, letters to editors, pre-registrations, and so forth and so on.

    Competing interests

    The author of this comment declares that they have no competing interests.